Periodica Polytechnica

Civil Engineering

OnlineFirst (2015) paper 7575

DOI: 10.3311/PPci.7575
Creative Commons Attribution

Numerical Study on Shear Stress

Variation of RC Wall with L Shaped
Section
Ali Ahmed Chaouch, Ramdane Boutemeur, Hakim Bechtoula, Abderrahim Bali

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Received 18-06-2014, revised 03-09-2014, accepted 27-11-2014

Abstract
In recent years, and after the 2003 Boumerdes earthquake,
a new type of building is being constructed in Algeria. The
new concept is based on the concentration of reinforced concrete shear walls with L shape at the building corners. The seismic behavior of such configuration is not well known nowadays.
Numerical investigation was carried out on reinforced concrete
structure to evaluate the stress distribution at the base of the
corner L shaped walls. Influence of number of stories, length
of the shear wall as well as the thickness of the wall was considered in our investigation. In total, more than 200 numerical
models were crated and analyzed. The analyses showed that,
reinforced concrete wall with 15 cm, or less, in thickness should
have a minimum length of 10 times the thickness; however, for
RC walls with a thickness of more than 20 cm, the length of the
wall should be greater than 7 times the thickness. In this paper
the main results of this investigation are presented.
Keywords
Reinforced concrete L-shaped shear wall high-rise RC
building shear behavior stress distribution

Ali Ahmed Chaouch

Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Science and Technology, Houari

Boumediene, BP 32 El Alia 16111 Bab Ezzouar, Algiers, Algeria

e-mail: ahmedchali@gmail.com
Ramdane Boutemeur
Department of Civil Engineering, Polytechnic national school (ENP-URIE), Avenue des Frres Ouddak, Hacen Badi,B.P.182, EL-HARRACH, 16200, Algiers
Algeria
e-mail: boutemeur@hotmail.com
Hakim Bechtoula
National Earthquake Engineering Research Center (CGS), CGS, 01, Rue Kaddour Rahim, BP 252, Hussein Dey, Alger, Algiers-Algeria

e-mail: bechhakim@gmail.com
Abderrahim Bali
Department of Civil Engineering, Polytechnic national school (ENP-URIE), Av-

enue des Frres Ouddak, Hacen Badi,B.P.182, EL-HARRACH, 16200, Algiers

Algeria
e-mail: balianl@yahoo.fr

Numerical Study on Shear Stress Variation of RC Wall with L Shaped Section

1 Introduction

After the 2003 earthquake that shook the region of Boumerdes

located at 60 km east from the capital Algiers with a magnitude
of 6.8, a new type of buildings is being erected. Introduction of
reinforced concrete, RC, walls at the four corners of the building
having an L shaped is the new configuration that is often used in
practice [1]. Reinforced concrete structures with L shape walls
offer advantages of open space and flexible architecture modelling. However, until now, seismic behavior of buildings with
such configuration is not well known [25].
Several high rise buildings in the world are made of reinforced
concrete shear walls. This type of structures performed very
well during the past earthquakes better than reinforced concrete
frame buildings.
Concrete wall structures are well known for their excellent
performance during earthquakes. Since 1963, no concrete building with shear walls has collapsed during an earthquake [19]. In
some cases, buildings with concrete structural walls showed little or no damage when neighbouring reinforced concrete frame
buildings were severely damaged or destroyed.
One type of seismic force resisting structure used in high-rise
wall buildings is a centrally located core without supplemental
moment resisting frames.
Effect of some parameters on the behavior and performance
of reinforced concrete shear walls was carried out in the past.
However, these studies were conducted on rectangular reinforced concrete shear walls. Frequently, designers are using
other configurations beside the rectangular cross sections, such
as T-shaped, H shaped and U shaped cross sections, in order to
reach higher levels of strength and stiffness.
In many cases, these complex members show completely
different behaviors than rectangular walls, and particular consideration is needed when these shapes are used in structures.
Among all types of flanged shear walls, the ones with T-, H-,
and U-shaped cross sections have been those most studied by
researchers [621]. Research has been more focused on walls
with symmetric cross sections, and few studies in the literature
report the behavior of flanged shear walls with asymmetric cross
sections, such as L-shaped walls. The stiffness, strength, and

ductility of such walls can be completely different in opposite

directions [12], and these walls even sometimes exhibit different failure modes in opposite directions.
Inada et al. (2008) [22] studied the effect of loading direction and the section configuration on the seismic behavior of
RC shear walls. Three reinforced concrete specimens of an Lshaped core-wall was constructed with 1 / 4.5 scale and statically
loaded to study the effect of loading direction and the section
configuration on the seismic performance of the core-wall. Two
of the specimens were the equilateral L-shaped walls, and the
third one was the inequilaterally L-shaped wall. All specimens
showed large deformation capability until the peak load. The
peak load was reached at drift angle around 1.0% in positive
direction when experiencing a vertical load about 30% of the
axial load capacity. The failure was caused by the crushing of
concrete at the compression zone. The failed region in equilateral one type of L-shaped wall and inequilaterally L-shaped wall
covered a relatively larger area than predicted by a section analysis and that for the second equilateral L-shaped wall covered
the whole flange section. It would be better to provide higher
confinement to the larger region of concrete to secure high ductility. The peak load was not reached in the negative direction
since the axial load was low. A simple fiber model simulated
well the lateral load-drift angle relation if the moment curvature relation at the wall base region was properly modelled
by considering pull-out of longitudinal reinforcement and local
crushing of concrete.
A testing program was carried out by Karamlou et al. (2012)
[23] on four slender shear walls with L-shaped cross sections
under the combined action of constant axial and cyclic lateral
loads. The specimens were built with industrialized R-ICF panels in which vertical reinforcements were provided in the panels at the time of fabrication. In addition, these vertical bars
were attached together using some spot welded crossties. This
research was conducted to assess behavioral aspects of an Lshaped shear wall constructed with this system. Two levels of
confinement were applied to the specimens by using additional
confining hoops and the panels spot welded crossties. All the
specimens exhibited a flexural mode of failure characterized by
a crushing of the boundary elements. However, the occurrence
of the web crushing phenomenon was shown to decrease the
stiffness, strength and ductility and increase the rotation of the
walls. Higher flexural strength of the walls in one direction
against the other and the application of large inelastic lateral
loads were important factors in increasing the possibility of web
crushing.
This paper presents the main results of a numerical study on
shear stress variation of RC wall with L shaped section. The aim
of the research was to evaluate the influence of some parameters
such as thickness/length of the shear wall and number of stories
on the shear stress variation.

Per. Pol. Civil Eng.

2 Considered building

To carry out our numerical analysis, we have considered a

regular RC building in plan with L shaped section shear walls
at the four corners as illustrated in Fig. 1. The building has an
equal story height of 3.00 meters. The three considered parameter in our analysis are:
t
l
N

Thickness of the RC walls,

Length of the walls,
Number of stories.

In the actual Algerian seismic regulation RPA99 / V2003

(2003), reinforced concrete shear wall is defined as an element
whose length is at least 4 times the thickness. Three wall thicknesses were considered in our study: 15 cm, 20 cm and 25 cm.
The ratio length to thickness (l / t) varied from 4 to 21 for a thickness of 15 cm, from 4 to 16 for a thickness of 20 cm and from 4
to 13 for a thickness of 25 cm.
As for buildings, we considered five buildings with 4, 6, 11,
16 and 21 stories which represent the common buildings that are
used in Algeria. Taking into account the variation of the three
parameters two hundred (200) models were analyzed. Fig. 1(b),
(c) and (d) show some models of the analyzed buildings.
All buildings were designed according the Algerian seismic
regulation RPA99 / V2003 (RPA, 2003). We supposed that the
building is erected on S2 soil type. Structures were modeled in a
3D space using the nonlinear Robot software [24] as illustrated
in Fig. 1.
The total design seismic base shear force is estimated using
the static equivalent force procedure (e. g., C.G.S, 2003), and
evaluated as:
V=

ADQ
W
R

(1)

Where:
V
A
D
Q
R
T
W

Total design base shear force,

Design base acceleration coefficient,
Mean dynamic amplification factor, function of the fundamental natural period,
Quality factor,
Behavior factor of the structure,
Natural fundamental period of the structure,
Total seismic weight.

The total seismic force is distributed over the height of the

structure as follows:
Fk =

(V Ft ) Wk hk
N
P
Wi hi

(2)

i=1

Where:
Fk
Ft

Seismic horizontal force at the kth level.

Shall be assumed to be concentrated at the top of the
structure in addition to Fn , and equal to 0.07 TV, with the

Ali Ahmed Chaouch, Ramdane Boutemeur, Hakim Bechtoula, Abderrahim Bali

(a) Plan view

(b) Six stories

(c) Eleven Stories

(d) Twenty one stories

Fig. 1. Configuration and models of the 6, 11 and 21 story buildings

Numerical Study on Shear Stress Variation of RC Wall with L Shaped Section

Wk
hk

condition that Ft 0.25 V and Ft = 0 when the period

does not exceed 0.7 sec.
Seismic weight at the kth level.
Height from the base to the kth level.

The mean dynamic amplification factor, D, function of the

fundamental natural period is given by the following equation:

D =

2.5
 2/3
2.5 TT2
 T 2
5/3
2.5 3.02 
3.0
T

if

0 T T2

if

T 2 T 3.0 sec

if

T 3.0 sec

(3)

Where:
T2

is the characteristic period, associated with the site category and shown in Table 1.
is the modified damping factor given by:

s
=

7
0.7
2+

(4)

Where:

is the percentage of the critical damping, which is a function of the material type.
Tab. 1. Values of T 2
Soil type

S1

S2

S3

S4

T 2 (sec)

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.70

3 Analysis results

From hereafter, the discussed results and the comparisons are

those related to the corner location, intersection between the two
RC walls as illustrated in Fig. 2, as an example. This zone is the
area where the shear stress is the most important, stress concentration. This remark was observed for all models analyzed
by the authors and also confirmed experimentally by Inada et al
[22].
The obtained maximum shear stresses for the different analyzed models are summarized in Table 2. Fig. 3 shows the shear
stress distribution versus the (l / t) ratio, for the dead load, life
load and earthquake combination. It is clearly shown that for
buildings with 21, 16 and 11 stories the shear stress increased
until reaching a peak stress and after that decreased undependably of the walls thickness. However, for buildings with 4 and 6
stories, peak stress was observed only for walls having a thickness of 15 and 20 cm; for the other thickness, shear stress varied nearly linearly with respect to the (l / t) ratio as shown in
Fig. 3(c). For some building heights and wall thicknesses, increasing the length of the shear walls (l) can increase the value
of the shear stress as seen in Fig. 3(a) and (b). As an example, for buildings with walls of 15 cm the shear stress increases
from l / t = 4 to l / t = 10. These values are respectively 4 and 7
for buildings with walls of 20 cm. It is suggested for RC shear
4

Per. Pol. Civil Eng.

walls of 15 cm thickness to have a length greater than 10 times

the thickness, l > 10 t. For walls with 20 and 25 cm thickness
this value is 7 and 5, respectively, as illustrated in Fig. 3 (d).
Fig. 4 shows the shear stress variation for a given building
with different wall thicknesses. It can be clearly observed that,
when the thickness of the walls increases the value of the peak
stress shift toward lower values of the ratio (t / l). The values
of the maximum shear stress, that took place at different l / t ratios, were the same for buildings of 4 and 6 stories regardless the
thickness of the walls, as illustrated in Fig. 4(a) and (b). For tall
buildings, however, a difference in shear stress was observed especially for buildings having 16 and 21 stories. This means that
for tall buildings, thickness of the walls is an important parameter as for the maximum stress value and stress distribution.
Effect of wall thickness on shear stress variation is shown in
Fig. 5 for the selected buildings. For 4 and 6 story buildings,
the shear stress of building having 25 cm thick walls is lower
than that for buildings with 15 and 20 cm thick walls. While
the height of the building increases (11, 16 and 21 stories), the
shear stress of buildings with 25 cm thick walls became higher
than that observed for the two other thicknesses.
Fig. 6 shows the variation of the shear force ratio carried by
the reinforced concrete walls, Vw, to the total input earthquake
force, Vt, for all buildings and the 3 different thicknesses. It
is well shown that the slope of the curves is much higher for
small (l / t) ratios than for large ratios. Besides that, the amount
of enhancement of the (Vw/Vt) ratio is important while passing
from a wall thickness of 15 to 25 cm than a wall thickness of
15 to 20 cm, especially for small (l / t) ratios. As an example
Table 2, compares the (Vw/Vt) for 2 values of (l / t) that are 4
and 12. As shown in the Table 3, for a small ratio of L / t = 4,
the enhancement (Vw/Vt) ratio passes from 1.59 to 2.61, while
increasing the walls thicknesses from 15 to 20 cm and from 15
to 25 cm, respectively. These values were only 1.10 and 1.22 for
a ratio l / t of 12.
The investigation showed also that the (Vw/Vt) - (l / t) relationships is the same for a given walls thickness, regardless the
number of stories, N, as illustrated in Fig. 7.
4 Conclusions

Main results of numerical analysis on shear stress variation in

an L shaped reinforced concrete wall were presented. The analysis was carried out for 6 RC building with 4, 6 11, 16 and 21
stories. For each building 3 wall thicknesses were selected that
are 15, 20 and 25 cm. In total more than 200 models were crated
and analyzed. It was shown that the shear stress increased until reaching a peak stress and after that decreased undependably
of the walls thickness, except for buildings with 4 and 6 stories
and 25 cm wall thickness where the shear stress varied nearly
linearly with respect to the (l / t) ratio. As it was discussed, increasing the length of the shear walls (l) increased the value of
the shear stress. Shear stress for buildings with walls of 15 cm
thickness increased from l / t = 4 to l / t= 10. These values were
Ali Ahmed Chaouch, Ramdane Boutemeur, Hakim Bechtoula, Abderrahim Bali

Fig. 2. Location of the stress concentration (comparison point)

(a) Walls with t = 15 cm

(b) Walls with t = 20 cm

(c) Walls with t = 25 cm

(d) Variation of peak stress with respect to wall thickness

Fig. 3. Shear stress-(l / t) ratio relationships

Numerical Study on Shear Stress Variation of RC Wall with L Shaped Section

Tab. 2. Summary of the shear stress variation with respect to the selected parameters
Thickness

t (cm)

15

20

25

Shear stress (MPA)

Ratio l / t

N =4

N =6

N = 11

N = 16

N = 21

1,23

1.83

2,52

3,07

3,51

1.46

2,19

3,1

3,72

4,22

1.59

2,38

3,49

4,16

4,7

1.61

2,4

3,65

4,32

4,86

1.61

2,41

3,8

4,47

5,05

1.61

2,4

3,9

4,57

5,15

10

1.59

2,36

3,97

4,65

5,22

11

1.46

2,18

3,79

4,44

4,99

12

1.40

2,09

3,72

4,34

4,88

13.3

1.32

1,98

3,62

4,21

4,72

14.6

1.25

1,87

3,44

4,12

4,63

16

1.18

1,77

3,26

3,97

4,45

17.33

1.12

1,68

3,09

3,85

4,32

18.66

1.07

1,6

2,94

3,77

4,23
4,07

20

1.03

1,52

2,81

3,62

21.33

1.00

1,45

2,68

3,55

1,51

2,24

3,19

3,81

4,39

1,61

2,39

3,59

4,25

4,85

1,61

2,4

3,77

4,44

5,05

1,55

2,3

3,8

4,44

5,03

1,48

2,2

3,77

4,4

4,98

1,4

2,09

3,72

4,34

4,88

10

1,32

1,98

3,62

4,24

4,72

11

1,25

1,87

3,44

4,09

4,58

12

1,18

1,77

3,26

3,97

4,45

13

1,12

1,68

3,09

3,85

4,32

14

1,07

1,6

2,94

3,77

4,23

15

1,03

1,52

2,81

3,62

4,07

16

1,45

2,68

3,55

1,59

2,36

3,84

4,56

5,18

4,8

1,54

2,29

3,96

4,67

5,28

5,8

1,45

2,16

3,94

4,62

5,21

6,4

1,37

2,04

3,75

4,55

5,11

7,2

1,29

1,92

3,54

4,43

4,98

1,22

1,81

3,33

4,3

4,83

8,8

1,17

1,7

3,15

4,17

4,68
4,49

9,6

1,13

1,61

2,98

4,01

10,4

1,08

1,53

2,82

3,91

4,4

11,2

1,04

1,45

2,69

3,79

4,26

12

1,38

2,56

3,67

4,14

12,8

0,96

1,32

2,45

3,57

4,02

Tab. 3. Enhancement of (Vw/Vt) ratios with respect to the l / t ratios

l/t

t = 15

t = 20

t = 25

t 20 / t 15

t 25 / t 15

24.51

38.89

63.92

1.59

2.61

12

74.68

82.16

91.45

1.10

1.22

Per. Pol. Civil Eng.

Ali Ahmed Chaouch, Ramdane Boutemeur, Hakim Bechtoula, Abderrahim Bali

(a) Four story building: N = 4

(b) Six story building: N = 6

(c) Eleven story building: N = 11

(d) Sixteen story building: N = 16

(e) Twenty one story building: N = 21

Fig. 4. Maximum shear stress distribution for different number of story buildings (N)

Numerical Study on Shear Stress Variation of RC Wall with L Shaped Section

(a) Four story building: N = 4

(b) Six story building: N = 6

(c) Eleven story building: N = 11

(d) Sixteen story building: N = 16

(e) Twenty one story building: N = 21

Fig. 5. Effect of wall thickness on shear stress distribution

Per. Pol. Civil Eng.

Ali Ahmed Chaouch, Ramdane Boutemeur, Hakim Bechtoula, Abderrahim Bali

Fig. 6. Variation of the shear force ratios carried by walls to the total earthquake force for different wall thicknesses

Numerical Study on Shear Stress Variation of RC Wall with L Shaped Section

Fig. 7. Effect of number of stories (N) on shear force ratios variation (Vw/Vt) for a given wall thickness

respectively 4 and 7 for buildings with walls of 20 cm.

It was also found that, when the thickness of the walls increases the value of the peak stress shift toward lower values of
the ratio (t / l). The values of the maximum shear stress, that took
place at different l / t ratios, were the same for buildings of 4 and
6 stories regardless the thickness of the walls. However, for tall
buildings, a difference in shear stress was observed especially
for buildings having 16 and 21 stories.
Based on the investigation, it was recommended for RC shear
walls of 15 cm thickness to have a length greater than 10 times
the thickness, l > 10 t. For walls with 20 and 25 cm thickness
this value is, respectively, 7 and 5.
The amount of enhancement of the (Vw/Vt) ratio is important
while passing from a wall thickness of 15 to 25 cm than a wall
thickness of 15 to 20 cm, especially for small (l / t) ratios. For
a small ratio of L / t = 4, the enhancement (Vw/Vt) ratio passes
from 1.59 to 2.61, while increasing the wall s thicknesses from
15 to 20 cm and from 15 to 25 cm, respectively. These values
were only 1.10 and 1.22 for a larger ratio of L / t = 12. The investigation showed also that the (Vw/Vt) - (l / t) relationships is
the same for a given walls thickness, regardless the number of

10

Per. Pol. Civil Eng.

stories, N.
The authors suggest that, for a thorough understanding of the
seismic behavior of reinforced concrete shear walls with an L
shaped section, more analyzes and experimental testing should
be carried out in the future.
References
1 Ousalem H, Bechtoula H, Report on the damage investigation and postseismic campaign of 2003 Zemmouri earthquake in Algeria, The ERI the
university of Tokyo; Ohbunsha press Japan, 2003.
2 Sakashita M, Bechtoula H, Kono S, Tanaka H, Watanabe F, A study
on the seismic force resisting mechanism of a multi-story shear wall system
considering the interaction between wall, slab, foundation beam, and pile
elements, the 13 world conference on earthquake engineering 13 WCEE,
In:; Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004, p. paper ID 3482. papers published on
CD.
3 Bechtoula H, Ousalem H, The 21 May Zemmouri, Algeria, Earthquake:
Damage and disaster Response, The Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, ACT, 3(1), (2005), 161174.
4 Ousalem H, Bechtoula H, Inventory Survey of the 2003 Zemmouri, Algeria,
Earthquake: Case Study of Dergana city, The Journal of Advanced Concrete
Technology, ACT, 3, (2005), 175183.
5 Taleb R, Bechtoula H, Sakashita M, Bourahla N, Kono S, Investigation of the shear Behaviour of multi-Story Reinforced Concrete walls with

Ali Ahmed Chaouch, Ramdane Boutemeur, Hakim Bechtoula, Abderrahim Bali

eccentric openings, Journal of Computer and Concrete, CAC, 10(4), (2012),

343359.
6 Blakely R, Cooney RC, Megget LM, Seismic shear loading at flexural capacity in cantilever wall structures, Bulletin of the New Zealand National
Society for Earthquake Engineering, 8(4), (1975), 278290.
7 Lefas ID, Kotsovos MD, Ambraseys NN, Behavior of reinforced concrete
structural walls: strength, deformation characteristics, and failure mechanism, ACI structural journal, 87(1), (1990), 2331.
8 Sharon SL, Shear strength of low-rise reinforced concrete walls, ACI structural journal, 87(1), (1990), 99107.
9 Lefas ID, Kotsovos MD, Ambraseys NN, Strength and deformation characteristics of reinforced concrete walls under load reversals, ACI structural
journal, 87(6), (1990), 716726.
10 Ebehart MO, Sozen MA, Behavior-based method to determine design shear
in earthquake-resistant walls, Journal of Structural Engineering, 119(2),
(1993).
11 Pilakoutas K, Elnashai A, Cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete cantilever walls, Part I: experimental results, ACI structural journal, 92(4),
(1995), 271281.
12 Thomson JH, Wallace JW, Displacement-based design of reinforced concrete structural walls: experimental studies of walls with rectangular and tshaped cross sections, Department of Civil and environmental Engineering,
Clarkson University; Potsdam NY, 1995. Report No CU/CEE-95/06.
13 Sittipunt C, Wood SL, Influence of web reinforcement on cyclic response of
structural walls, ACI structural journal, 92(6), (1995), 745756.
14 Zhang Y, Wang Z, Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete shear walls subjected to high axial loading, ACI structural journal, 97(5), (2000), 739750.
15 Riva P, Franchi A, Behavior of reinforced concrete walls with welded wire
mesh subjected to cyclic loading, ACI structural journal, 98(3), (2001), 324
334.
16 Palermo D, Vecchio FJ, Behavior of three-dimensional reinforced concrete
shear walls, ACI structural journal, 99(1), (2002), 8189.
17 Adebar P, Ibrahim AMM, Simple non-linear flexural stiffness model for
concrete shear walls, Earthquake Spectra EERI, 18(3), (2002), 407426.
18 Hassen M, El-Tawil S, Tension flange effect width in reinforced concrete
shear walls, ACI structural journal, 100(3), (2003), 349356.
19 Watkins TW, Seismic demand in high-rise concrete walls, Phd Thesis, The
University British Columbia, 2004.
20 Xun Huy Nguyen, Vulnrabilit des structures en bton arm voiles
porteurs : Exprimentation et modlisation, Doctorat Thesis, INP Grenoble,
2006.
21 Maffei J, Yuen N, Seismic performance and design Requirements for HighRise Building, Structure Magazine, (2007), 2832.
22 Inada K, Bechtoula H, Chosa H, Kono S, Watanabe F, Seismic performance of RC L-Shaped core structural walls, the 14th world conference
on earthquake engineering, In:; Beijing, China, 2008, pp. paper 12-01-0134.
papers published on CD.
23 Karamlou A, Zaman Kabir M, Experimental study of L-Shaped slender
R-ICF shear walls under cyclic lateral loading, Engineering structures, 36,
(2012), 134146.
24 Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional, Autodesk; USA, 2011.

Numerical Study on Shear Stress Variation of RC Wall with L Shaped Section

11